NRL should inroduce the 'six-again' penalty

I think every fan-scripted article should begin with the relevant variation of this disclaimer: I am a Roosters fan, and I am incapable of delivering commentary on anything involving the Chooks without a fair chunk of bias.

But two weeks ago I watched my table-topping Roosters battle a gallant Newcastle Knights team, and couldn’t help but feel like my team was benefiting from a great flaw in the modern game.

Up 18-10, but with all the momentum clearly in the Knights favour, the Roosters were desperately holding their line against wave after wave of attacking raids.

The defensive effort was made all the more impressive by how many repeat sets were repelled. In fact the Roosters gave away at least three or four penalties in that brief period of desperation.

But the line remained intact and after the final penalty was blown the Knights decided to take the two, slot over a goal and reset after the kick-off at 18-12.

You might be wondering why I was feeling a little bit guilty with how the Roosters performed; surely I should have been proud of their determination and the growing legend of their defence.

The Knights had what every team want – repeat sets – and yet couldn’t make good on the promise of a try.

After the game the Roosters players called out the period as a great show of character and team commitment. This is the stuff you want to see as we head towards September.

The fact is in the modern age of rugby league successful teams are operating more and more on the back of structure. Look at the Melbourne Storm. They are lethal on the back of set plays.

They have structured their attack to optimise attacking field position from restarts – scrums, drop outs and penalties.

But structure goes both ways; in defence it is just as important (if not more so) than structure in attack. A team like the Roosters, when their defensive line is set, are near impenetrable.

Their defensive stats don’t lie and it has taken them to the top of the table.

So every time the Knights charged the line, trying to compress the defence and make space out wide, the Roosters could sense the danger and preferred to concede a penalty, receiving a break in play and resetting the structure of their line.

It is perfectly legal, but it goes against what makes our game so attractive (even if it did guarantee the Tricolours another couple competition points). Hopefully though, moments like this might just pave the way for a modification to the rule book which could help add more spark to the game and halt its march down the road predictability through professionalism.

I propose we introduce a concept called the Six-Again Penalty.

Much like playing the advantage, when an infringement occurs – offside, holding down, hand on the ball, flop, and any other infringement where the ball carrier still has control of the ball – the referee could yell out “Six Again; Penalty”.

From there the attacking team continues play at zero tackle, with the captain having one play to signal to either referee that they want to stop play and take the penalty in the traditional fashion.

The rule would need to come with upgrades to a few other rules.

First, the sinbin. The sinbin needs to be used more often.

The repeated infringements from the Roosters on the Knights had crossed the line and should have been considered professional fouls after a point.

Someone should have gone to the bin. This would need some discussion around what is that point, but one option is to go as far as setting a limit – three consecutive penalties inside the 20m will render an automatic sinbin.

It would likely need to be fleshed out a little more (maybe a five minute binning or an ice-hockey style “come back if they score” limit) but that is for another article.

Point is the threat needs to be there and clearly understood by both referees and the players.

Origin I is remembered because Paul Gallen should have been sinbinned.

But that overshadowed another incident which required sinbinning. Early in the first half Maloney split the Maroons line and ran 40 metres only to be pulled down one metre from the scoring.

Cooper Cronk proceeded to lie all over him, gave away a penalty and then when Maloney stood up, Cronk continued to keep his hand on the ball to prevent any quick play.

Why? Because the Queensland defence was in disarray and if Maloney had played the ball NSW would have scored.

Imagine if Cronk laid all over Maloney but, instead of stopping play with a penalty, the referee just called out “Six again penalty”.

Cronk would have to get up, Maloney plays the ball, and NSW make the most of the opportunity (which means they probably drop it).

If Cronk wanted to keep slowing the play then the referee, with stricter interpretations of professional fouls, would simply bin him.

The other interpretation that needs to be revised is the quick tap. This goes hand in hand with the philosophy of the SAP.

Some infringements cannot be “play-on”. Both NSW and Queensland had periods of defence where they stripped the ball away in order to slow the play.

The referees blow their whistle for an age, have a conversation with the captain, tell the players to slow down, and do everything except set the mark for a quick tap, all the while the defensive structure returns.

The quick tap needs to be brought back.

One of the greatest innovations of the last few years was the simplest – the option to take the 20m restart as quickly as possible.

This vastly improved the speed of the game, and brought in more unpredictability in an area of the field that is usually quite mundane.

The SAP, with revised sinbinning and quick tap interpretations could be just as enterprising.

It will encourage faster football, isolate negative tactics and increase that precious commodity that structure and professionalism are slowly phasing out – spontaneity.